By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Lots of bashing for the belief of God....

vlad321 said:
pizzahut451 said:
vlad321 said:

Let me list the highlight of everything stupid you just said, I am sure I will miss some:

You defended your belief saying that "all the good ones" agree without realizing "good" is some imaginary concept you have in your own, apaprently not intelligent, head.

No, its just that you seem to be (and im not trying to be offensive, thats just what I see) a really sad, angry,disrespectful, hatefull  and extremly ignorant person of everything you dont support

You managed to discard 3 pieces of concrete evidence by shouting. Kudos to you, even my brother wouldn't argue like that since he was 6.

Evidence for what? That Jesus Christ wasa sinncer and his mother a whore? Sounds a lot like some random insults you imagend just to insult people and be disrespectuf as always, with NO EVIDENCE whatsoever, just your dumb assumption based on hatred of Christianity?

Using lack of evidence to defend your imaginary buddy, and then saying that lack of evidence doesn't prove anything, in this case Jesus' sins. Unless you know what he did between 12-30, and let me remind you what people usually do betwen those ages.

My evidence was and is just as useful as your evidence aganst my ''imaginary'' buddy. And i think every personw who's at least gonna try arguing about Christianity know who Jesus Christ is. You dont see to havr that kind of intelect.

You claimed that theory precedes evidence.... That is just... Wow. No words. Such ignorance is beyond hilarious, and I am actually sad that you believe something like that.

Once we have evidence for soemthing and we know its true, that is no longer theory, but a fact.A thoery is something that hasnt been proven yet for the lack of good evidence.

You liked to talk about first cause and stuff, but when it comes to god, for some reason you don't question "where the hell did HE come from?" Typical religious hypocrisy and double standard.

God didnt came from nowhere. He is omnipresent and infinite (timeless), meaneing he was always in the existance.

You claim there are some valid arguments about an omniscient, omnipotenrt,etc. being. This ties in with the previous point as well.

You  didnt atually bother to debund thos ''unvaild'' arguments to call  them unvaild, did you?

This isn't exactly stupid, but just a lack of imagination. There are things that we don't even begin to comprehend, an innumerable amount, yet you say that "there is a being" is more likely than literally a set which has no bounds that any human, given 100 lifetimes, would be able to even comprehend.

Thats a pretty dumb argument. You said just becauswe we cant even imagine or theorize something doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Univers could have only created in 2 way: By a supreme ultimate being (that being God) or by itself by some laws of physics or science yet unknown to us. There is no 3rd way, all other possibilites fit into first or 2nd describtion.

 

 


Also, I wont be able to respond for a wekk, im coming back to Serbia, and I wont be back online until next Monday, so I cant respoond to the topic until than.


So ok let's go over this real quick because this is getting less and less funny and more and more sad with each post you make:

Reponse with, and I quote, "No." That was it.

You STILL fail to realize that there is utterly overwhelming evidence it takes a man and a woman to have a child, therefore the burden of proof of "god did it" falls to you. Same with people doing dumb shit between the ages of 12 and 30, so the burden of proof falls to YOU, not me. You have utterly zero evidence besides what was written in a book, by a human, abiout what was said, by a few humans. The stupidity comes from the whole fact that you don't realize that "you have no proof of the opposite" does not apply to this, because extreme proof of the oppostie.

So I guess all the historic evidence describing Jesus Christ as sinless or moraly perfect person isnt good enough? Lots of roman and greek hsitorical texts and councels described him as an amazing and pure soul, unlike any other man. And if Jesus Christ was comcepted like a normal human, with an intercourse between a man and a woman or was he born by a virgin and like son of God is irrelevant because neither doesnt make his morals any less correct and rigteous, which was the point of our discussion, which you seem to forget/ignore and just focuse on your standard insults and disrespect. Why dont you just read this link  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus               

 

Somehow "everyone knows about Jesus" is proper evidence. That is laughably stupid as well.

Failure to realize "god is timeless" doesn't mean that god just alwasy existed. Where did this timelessness come from? Also if he is omniscient, you fail to realize that the whole shit about "free will" is laughable to him and utterly pointless. Unless he is omniscient but can't see what choices people make, in which case he isn't any more omniscient than you or me.

wut? ''where did timelessness come from'' wow, thats quite a question. God didnt come from anywhere, he's always been in the existance. As for omniscience, God can see what choices people make, and probaly knows how would those choices effect people, but he doesnt intervene with the choices people make, and as such, people can always change what happens in the future or what happens to them, and that is free will. God's plan is about us having free will. I guess im coming off as a desit here (and lately, I am starting idenitfy myself as one) but its true, God can look at the future but its us (humans, people) who are making it

Because it is hard to debunk made up stories. The burden of proof lies with whoever claims facts are true, not the opposite.

What made up stories? Jesus Christ isnt made, he is real .But you cant call anything made up until you actually have proof its made up. You can say ''its not worth the belief'' but you cant call it false until you have proof.

Your imagination, or lack there of, is failing. All you basically stated was A or ~A. Well no fuckign shit does A or ~A fill the entire range of possibilities. Your lack of imagination comes in the fact you don't realize just how unimaginably huge ~A is compared to A. It's liek saying, All the real numbers are 1, or NOT 1. Well no shit

Thats all I've been arguing about - that either Theism or Atheism are wrong as if God either created the universe or something else did (the unknow laws nature of physics),but to be honest, God is the best, easiest, most reasonable explanation for the creation of the universe asof now. But both ahtiesm and theism  of them cant be wrong at the same time, and that was my whole point.





Around the Network
God is the best, easiest, most reasonable explanation for the creation of the universe asof now. But both ahtiesm and theism  of them cant be wrong at the same time, and that was my whole point.

Setting aside for the moment the extremely questionable claim in the first sentence, your second sentence, I think, utterly misses vlad's point. 

Between "the universe wasn't created by a god" and "it was", obviously one and only one of these is true.  But if it was created by a god, what kind of god was it?  This question has infinite answers, each as baseless as the others, limited only by the human imagination.  And all of the answers you've ever heard could all* be wrong. 

*Second "all" is grammatically wrong IMO but added for your convenience. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

pizzahut451 said:
vlad321 said:


So ok let's go over this real quick because this is getting less and less funny and more and more sad with each post you make:

Reponse with, and I quote, "No." That was it.

You STILL fail to realize that there is utterly overwhelming evidence it takes a man and a woman to have a child, therefore the burden of proof of "god did it" falls to you. Same with people doing dumb shit between the ages of 12 and 30, so the burden of proof falls to YOU, not me. You have utterly zero evidence besides what was written in a book, by a human, abiout what was said, by a few humans. The stupidity comes from the whole fact that you don't realize that "you have no proof of the opposite" does not apply to this, because extreme proof of the oppostie.

So I guess all the historic evidence describing Jesus Christ as sinless or moraly perfect person isnt good enough? Lots of roman and greek hsitorical texts and councels described him as an amazing and pure soul, unlike any other man. And if Jesus Christ was comcepted like a normal human, with an intercourse between a man and a woman or was he born by a virgin and like son of God is irrelevant because neither doesnt make his morals any less correct and rigteous, which was the point of our discussion, which you seem to forget/ignore and just focuse on your standard insults and disrespect. Why dont you just read this link  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus               

 

Somehow "everyone knows about Jesus" is proper evidence. That is laughably stupid as well.

Failure to realize "god is timeless" doesn't mean that god just alwasy existed. Where did this timelessness come from? Also if he is omniscient, you fail to realize that the whole shit about "free will" is laughable to him and utterly pointless. Unless he is omniscient but can't see what choices people make, in which case he isn't any more omniscient than you or me.

wut? ''where did timelessness come from'' wow, thats quite a question. God didnt come from anywhere, he's always been in the existance. As for omniscience, God can see what choices people make, and probaly knows how would those choices effect people, but he doesnt intervene with the choices people make, and as such, people can always change what happens in the future or what happens to them, and that is free will. God's plan is about us having free will. I guess im coming off as a desit here (and lately, I am starting idenitfy myself as one) but its true, God can look at the future but its us (humans, people) who are making it

 

Because it is hard to debunk made up stories. The burden of proof lies with whoever claims facts are true, not the opposite.

What made up stories? Jesus Christ isnt made, he is real .But you cant call anything made up until you actually have proof its made up. You can say ''its not worth the belief'' but you cant call it false until you have proof.

Your imagination, or lack there of, is failing. All you basically stated was A or ~A. Well no fuckign shit does A or ~A fill the entire range of possibilities. Your lack of imagination comes in the fact you don't realize just how unimaginably huge ~A is compared to A. It's liek saying, All the real numbers are 1, or NOT 1. Well no shit

Thats all I've been arguing about - that either Theism or Atheism are wrong as if God either created the universe or something else did (the unknow laws nature of physics),but to be honest, God is the best, easiest, most reasonable explanation for the creation of the universe asof now. But both ahtiesm and theism  of them cant be wrong at the same time, and that was my whole point.



I shall continue your laughable faults:

I read through that entire thing, plus skimmed some sources. Nowehre is it even close to claiming he is sinnless. I think you are just trying to project your imagination onto the subject. I don't see the need to argue with some one whose arguments are so laughably bad. I would just rather tell you why they are laughably bad.

So you can believe that god has always just existed, but you can't believe there were some quarks (or whatever other thing it might have been, I don't know) which have always existed? Furthermore your ENTIRE sentence is such a laughable contradiction. WHat you described is a fake free-will. If he knows how things are, then they cant be changed by us, and our free will is just an illusion. Furthermore, that means he has seen things such as World War 2, AND LET THEM HAPPEN. He is basically at fault of any atrocity that has happened if he is indeed timeless. Now if that isn't an asshole who should be tortured and killed I don't know what is. Then his excuse is "yeah i let my son bear the burden of my assholery." I swear, this part of the argument I am getting the most entertainment out of.

Jesus is real. His miracles, his heritage (the son of god), his resurrection, is all made up. They all stem from him being the son of god, so you assume that god exists to justify him. However you fail to understand that I am questioning those very assumptions, meaning anything absed on those assumptions is taken to be false, unless you prove your assumptions to be true. Which you can't, hence made up. In the end, the evidence goes overwhelmingly against Jesus and his mother, and I have yet to see any sinseible proof to their holiness.

Let's examine what else was "the best and easiest" in history. Flat earth. Geocentricity. Elemental spirits. I can keep on listing many such things. Historically what is "easiest" has been wrong, because the masses are idiots. Calculus wasn't the "easiest," nor is gravity, nor is just about anything natural in our existance. If anything, what the masses find to be "easiest" is a pretty good indicator of error.

Also, exactly what FInal-Fan said above.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Scoobes said:
Allfreedom99 said:

Scoobes said:

This is getting quite long so I'll keep this short. You seem to have missed my point. An atheist doesn't have to believe that space, energy and matter must have always existed. He simply says, "Don't know that yet.... lets try and find out". That's the point I'm trying to get across. You say they must have always existed or their was a designer. An atheist (well, scientist) will see it as a gap in our knowledge waiting to be filled instead of jumping the gun with no actual evidence.

Plus, the concepts of space, time and energy are measurable. The concept of a creator isn't something we can measure or observe or even infer from effects.

And the question I answered, nucleic acids came from organic molecules combining in early Earth conditions (mixtures of methane, hydrogen, ammonia etc. with lightning as a catalyst). There are a few theories and papers as to how they came about that go into far more detail.

Im sure I sound like a broken record by now, but you are also missing my point.  What you just said here:

An atheist doesn't have to believe that space, energy and matter must have always existed. He simply says, "Don't know that yet.... lets try and find out". That's the point I'm trying to get across.

I dont mean to burst the bubble but you have just proven my point, that atheism is based on faith. If atheism was indeed the same thing as science as you say then nothing would be existing right now. Science will continually study to find the origin of the universe. When you go down the road of atheism you come to a dead end that cannot be explained by science alone. Therefore atheism is based on faith. To believe otherwise is being blind. the people on this post that are arguing against theism are saying that theism is based on faith, and atheism is based on science. Simply not true. Both are indeed based on faith. Scientists will never discover matter that has no beginning or time table upon it. All matter has a beginning.

In conclusion you also did not understand my point. If I were to ask you or a scientist, Where did intelligence come from? what gave us the ability to have intelligence? The entire realm of intelligence cannot be created by matter, time, space, or something that is equal to nothing.

Atheism: In the beginning there was "something" (based on faith). Theism: In the beginning there was God (based on faith).

You still don't seem to understand the difference between faith and science. I'm not missing your point; your point is wrong. You keep asking questions but atheism never claims to answer all questions but will always look for answers. There is no dead end, but a constant journey of self-correction.

And who says intelligence can't come from matter, time and space? You ask that question and yet you're already sure of your answers.

As for your last sentence, how I think it should look:

Atheism: In the beginning there may have been something that expanded from a singular point (based on evidence and the concepts will constantly be improved upon as more presents itself)

Theism: In there beginning there was a god (based on no evidence and pure faith with no self-correction when evidence is presented)

I see there is no room for consideration from you, as well as Im sure you see there is no room for consideration from me on your views of the origin of the universe. Im sure you think my views are foolish, as I think your views are foolish. You say I am only looking through the prism of my own human intellect. But what else do we have to make sense of the universe around us other than what our human knowledge can understand?  You say that there are factors we have not even discovered yet that will help us unravel the origins of the universe. What we have is human intellect and we make educated guesses on the information we have at our fingertips about the very beginning. I see design and order among chaos. All you see is chaos. Thats what you have implied.

I will never understand the atheist view as also I know atheist will never understand a theists view. I look up into our vast universe and I see beauty, and a vast cosmos of splendor. I see planets naturally orbiting their stars. I see trillions of stars among each trillions of galaxies. I see a solar eclipse take place and see that the moon aligns perfectly with our star and we have a perfect viewing platform to experience it. I look at our earth and see beauty, colors, wonderful smells, and life. I watch the sunset over the waters and can only think, how beautiful that is. I go outside on a nice warm summer day and breathe in the fresh air. I see a huge beautiful universe and a special planet that we live on and it makes me see the evidence of a designer. You look at it all and see mathematical calculations that occured by chance. You see elements that naturally just occurred with no knowledgeable force to guide them. You will never understand me. I will never understand you.




Allfreedom99 said:

I see there is no room for consideration from you, as well as Im sure you see there is no room for consideration from me on your views of the origin of the universe. Im sure you think my views are foolish, as I think your views are foolish. You say I am only looking through the prism of my own human intellect. But what else do we have to make sense of the universe around us other than what our human knowledge can understand?  You say that there are factors we have not even discovered yet that will help us unravel the origins of the universe. What we have is human intellect and we make educated guesses on the information we have at our fingertips about the very beginning. I see design and order among chaos. All you see is chaos. Thats what you have implied.

I will never understand the atheist view as also I know atheist will never understand a theists view. I look up into our vast universe and I see beauty, and a vast cosmos of splendor. I see planets naturally orbiting their stars. I see trillions of stars among each trillions of galaxies. I see a solar eclipse take place and see that the moon aligns perfectly with our star and we have a perfect viewing platform to experience it. I look at our earth and see beauty, colors, wonderful smells, and life. I watch the sunset over the waters and can only think, how beautiful that is. I go outside on a nice warm summer day and breathe in the fresh air. I see a huge beautiful universe and a special planet that we live on and it makes me see the evidence of a designer. You look at it all and see mathematical calculations that occured by chance. You see elements that naturally just occurred with no knowledgeable force to guide them. You will never understand me. I will never understand you.

You make it sound like atheists can't view the world and universe as beautiful or can't be spiritual. You don't need to believe in a creator to see beauty in the world. If anything, I think the world is more beautiful and humbling without a creator. Seeing the raw power of the world/universe and our relative insignificance is imo the most humbling and spiritual of experiences one can go through. The fact that we've developed and have the capacity to manipulate the world and nature in the way that we do is beautiful.Just because we understand some of the science behind what we observe doesn't mean it can't still take our breath away. In fact, for me, it makes it more beautiful.

None of this beauty requires evidence or belief in a creator.



Around the Network
Allfreedom99 said:

I see there is no room for consideration from you, as well as Im sure you see there is no room for consideration from me on your views of the origin of the universe. Im sure you think my views are foolish, as I think your views are foolish. You say I am only looking through the prism of my own human intellect. But what else do we have to make sense of the universe around us other than what our human knowledge can understand?  You say that there are factors we have not even discovered yet that will help us unravel the origins of the universe. What we have is human intellect and we make educated guesses on the information we have at our fingertips about the very beginning. I see design and order among chaos. All you see is chaos. Thats what you have implied.

I will never understand the atheist view as also I know atheist will never understand a theists view. I look up into our vast universe and I see beauty, and a vast cosmos of splendor. I see planets naturally orbiting their stars. I see trillions of stars among each trillions of galaxies. I see a solar eclipse take place and see that the moon aligns perfectly with our star and we have a perfect viewing platform to experience it. I look at our earth and see beauty, colors, wonderful smells, and life. I watch the sunset over the waters and can only think, how beautiful that is. I go outside on a nice warm summer day and breathe in the fresh air. I see a huge beautiful universe and a special planet that we live on and it makes me see the evidence of a designer. You look at it all and see mathematical calculations that occured by chance. You see elements that naturally just occurred with no knowledgeable force to guide them. You will never understand me. I will never understand you.


I'm sorry, but I have to weigh in here. I've stayed out of this debate so far because theological debates tend to end with me telling people their deepest beliefs are wrong, which makes me feel bad. But I have to reply to this to defend atheism.

You paint an incredibly bleak picture of atheism. I wouldn't really consider myself much of an atheist anymore, but I don't believe in a creator by any means, so what I say is still valid.

In my current line of research I have had to learn about how light behaves (as well as the occlusion, needless to say). I could tell you, mathematically, how light behaves during an eclipse*. But because I know how the light behaves doesn't make an eclipse less spectacular. If an eclipse were to happen right now I would be staring at the beauty like everyone else. Just because I understand the physics doesn't means I can't appreciate it. In fact, if anything, I probably appreciate it more because I understand it!

You paint a bleak picture of atheism. And beyond that you paint a bleak picture of having knowledge in general!

 (*In fact the sun and moon rarely line up perfectly for an eclipse like you say, and most people get solar or annular eclipses. It's a matter of perspective, not design)



highwaystar101 said:
Allfreedom99 said:

I see there is no room for consideration from you, as well as Im sure you see there is no room for consideration from me on your views of the origin of the universe. Im sure you think my views are foolish, as I think your views are foolish. You say I am only looking through the prism of my own human intellect. But what else do we have to make sense of the universe around us other than what our human knowledge can understand?  You say that there are factors we have not even discovered yet that will help us unravel the origins of the universe. What we have is human intellect and we make educated guesses on the information we have at our fingertips about the very beginning. I see design and order among chaos. All you see is chaos. Thats what you have implied.

I will never understand the atheist view as also I know atheist will never understand a theists view. I look up into our vast universe and I see beauty, and a vast cosmos of splendor. I see planets naturally orbiting their stars. I see trillions of stars among each trillions of galaxies. I see a solar eclipse take place and see that the moon aligns perfectly with our star and we have a perfect viewing platform to experience it. I look at our earth and see beauty, colors, wonderful smells, and life. I watch the sunset over the waters and can only think, how beautiful that is. I go outside on a nice warm summer day and breathe in the fresh air. I see a huge beautiful universe and a special planet that we live on and it makes me see the evidence of a designer. You look at it all and see mathematical calculations that occured by chance. You see elements that naturally just occurred with no knowledgeable force to guide them. You will never understand me. I will never understand you.


I'm sorry, but I have to weigh in here. I've stayed out of this debate so far because theological debates tend to end with me telling people their deepest beliefs are wrong, which makes me feel bad. But I have to reply to this to defend atheism.

You paint an incredibly bleak picture of atheism. I wouldn't really consider myself much of an atheist anymore, but I don't believe in a creator by any means, so what I say is still valid.

In my current line of research I have had to learn about how light behaves (as well as the occlusion, needless to say). I could tell you, mathematically, how light behaves during an eclipse*. But because I know how the light behaves doesn't make an eclipse less spectacular. If an eclipse were to happen right now I would be staring at the beauty like everyone else. Just because I understand the physics doesn't means I can't appreciate it. In fact, if anything, I probably appreciate it more because I understand it!

You paint a bleak picture of atheism. And beyond that you paint a bleak picture of having knowledge in general!

 (*In fact the sun and moon rarely line up perfectly for an eclipse like you say, and most people get solar or annular eclipses. It's a matter of perspective, not design)

I dont mean to say an atheist is not capable of seeing beauty around them. If I offended or If thats what It seemed I was implying then it was wrong. What I am trying to say is that I dont understand how someone can look into the sky on the darkest night to see a multitude of beautiful stars and think that it all happened through chance of mathematical possibilities. I dont understand how an atheist can look into the eyes of their new born baby and think that it has no significance in this universe whatsoever. I cant understand how an atheist can believe that everything began from a singular point with no intelligent designer behind it. What I am saying is, how can beauty just happen? How is it that we even have math and science to be able to study complex theories? When a total eclipse happens it gives us a rare view of the outer linings of the sun. And I know that an eclipse is not always a full eclipse. How is it that we have color, and our eyes can see in color. I know technically it is the cones in our eyes, but how did colors just happen?  Im saying I see all of these amazing elements and views in our universe and say that I can appreciate its beauty because for an intelligent being to create something so wonderful, that intelligent creator must be incredible.

I understand there is no way to measure "God" with science, because it is something in the supernatural realm. supernatural does not fit into science. What Im saying is that just by looking around you, you will see evidence of design if you allow yourself to.You can believe that everything began from a singular point with no intelligent being involved. But any human mind must see that to have matter effect matter there must be energy to effect that matter. A human mind must realize that energy does not come about from nothing. I know you probably won't, but just stop and think of the theory of in the beginning there was a "singular point", and thats where the universe began. A singular point is used in mathematics, so how would it be that a singular point had the knowledge to just appear and begin the universe?

My last point. Are you familiar with the flagellum in the human body? It is in all senses a organelle of locomotion(motor) that is attached to certain cells in many living organisms. In face some of the most basic living organisms possess these including: algae, fungi, and mosses. The base of it contains a hook like structure that acts just like a propeller and can turn clockwise or counterclockwise. This motor helps to move cells along and keep them in motion to allow for respiration and circulation. The flagellum of these cells is a important component for life.When you see a graph of a flagellum you see everything a motor would possess. Is this not a possibility of design? how can matter,which possesses no intelligence, cause a flagellum motor to form on these cells?

How is it that there are so many complexities that exist and then someone can claim that everything began without any intelligence in existence to begin the universe? As I said earlier an atheist cannot understand my belief, and I cannot understand an atheists.




Scoobes said:
Allfreedom99 said:

I see there is no room for consideration from you, as well as Im sure you see there is no room for consideration from me on your views of the origin of the universe. Im sure you think my views are foolish, as I think your views are foolish. You say I am only looking through the prism of my own human intellect. But what else do we have to make sense of the universe around us other than what our human knowledge can understand?  You say that there are factors we have not even discovered yet that will help us unravel the origins of the universe. What we have is human intellect and we make educated guesses on the information we have at our fingertips about the very beginning. I see design and order among chaos. All you see is chaos. Thats what you have implied.

I will never understand the atheist view as also I know atheist will never understand a theists view. I look up into our vast universe and I see beauty, and a vast cosmos of splendor. I see planets naturally orbiting their stars. I see trillions of stars among each trillions of galaxies. I see a solar eclipse take place and see that the moon aligns perfectly with our star and we have a perfect viewing platform to experience it. I look at our earth and see beauty, colors, wonderful smells, and life. I watch the sunset over the waters and can only think, how beautiful that is. I go outside on a nice warm summer day and breathe in the fresh air. I see a huge beautiful universe and a special planet that we live on and it makes me see the evidence of a designer. You look at it all and see mathematical calculations that occured by chance. You see elements that naturally just occurred with no knowledgeable force to guide them. You will never understand me. I will never understand you.

You make it sound like atheists can't view the world and universe as beautiful or can't be spiritual. You don't need to believe in a creator to see beauty in the world. If anything, I think the world is more beautiful and humbling without a creator. Seeing the raw power of the world/universe and our relative insignificance is imo the most humbling and spiritual of experiences one can go through. The fact that we've developed and have the capacity to manipulate the world and nature in the way that we do is beautiful.Just because we understand some of the science behind what we observe doesn't mean it can't still take our breath away. In fact, for me, it makes it more beautiful.

None of this beauty requires evidence or belief in a creator.

Scoobes, read my post to highwaystar and I basically say the same to you. I just didnt want to have to type out everything trying to explain it in a different way. :)




highwaystar101 said:


I'm sorry, but I have to weigh in here. I've stayed out of this debate so far because theological debates tend to end with me telling people their deepest beliefs are wrong, which makes me feel bad. But I have to reply to this to defend atheism.

You paint an incredibly bleak picture of atheism. I wouldn't really consider myself much of an atheist anymore, but I don't believe in a creator by any means, so what I say is still valid.

In my current line of research I have had to learn about how light behaves (as well as the occlusion, needless to say). I could tell you, mathematically, how light behaves during an eclipse*. But because I know how the light behaves doesn't make an eclipse less spectacular. If an eclipse were to happen right now I would be staring at the beauty like everyone else. Just because I understand the physics doesn't means I can't appreciate it. In fact, if anything, I probably appreciate it more because I understand it!

You paint a bleak picture of atheism. And beyond that you paint a bleak picture of having knowledge in general!

 (*In fact the sun and moon rarely line up perfectly for an eclipse like you say, and most people get solar or annular eclipses. It's a matter of perspective, not design)

And you find this surprising because...?



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Allfreedom99 said:

I dont mean to say an atheist is not capable of seeing beauty around them. If I offended or If thats what It seemed I was implying then it was wrong. What I am trying to say is that I dont understand how someone can look into the sky on the darkest night to see a multitude of beautiful stars and think that it all happened through chance of mathematical possibilities. I dont understand how an atheist can look into the eyes of their new born baby and think that it has no significance in this universe whatsoever. I cant understand how an atheist can believe that everything began from a singular point with no intelligent designer behind it. What I am saying is, how can beauty just happen? How is it that we even have math and science to be able to study complex theories? When a total eclipse happens it gives us a rare view of the outer linings of the sun. And I know that an eclipse is not always a full eclipse. How is it that we have color, and our eyes can see in color. I know technically it is the cones in our eyes, but how did colors just happen?  Im saying I see all of these amazing elements and views in our universe and say that I can appreciate its beauty because for an intelligent being to create something so wonderful, that intelligent creator must be incredible.

I understand there is no way to measure "God" with science, because it is something in the supernatural realm. supernatural does not fit into science. What Im saying is that just by looking around you, you will see evidence of design if you allow yourself to.You can believe that everything began from a singular point with no intelligent being involved. But any human mind must see that to have matter effect matter there must be energy to effect that matter. A human mind must realize that energy does not come about from nothing. I know you probably won't, but just stop and think of the theory of in the beginning there was a "singular point", and thats where the universe began. A singular point is used in mathematics, so how would it be that a singular point had the knowledge to just appear and begin the universe?

My last point. Are you familiar with the flagellum in the human body? It is in all senses a organelle of locomotion(motor) that is attached to certain cells in many living organisms. In face some of the most basic living organisms possess these including: algae, fungi, and mosses. The base of it contains a hook like structure that acts just like a propeller and can turn clockwise or counterclockwise. This motor helps to move cells along and keep them in motion to allow for respiration and circulation. The flagellum of these cells is a important component for life.When you see a graph of a flagellum you see everything a motor would possess. Is this not a possibility of design? how can matter,which possesses no intelligence, cause a flagellum motor to form on these cells?

How is it that there are so many complexities that exist and then someone can claim that everything began without any intelligence in existence to begin the universe? As I said earlier an atheist cannot understand my belief, and I cannot understand an atheists.

A baby doesn't have no significance whatsoever, it's very important to the parents after all.  But indeed the universe doesn't care. 

As for beauty happening though mathematical probability, do you not find fractals beautiful?  They are simply visual renditions of mathematical functions. 
And they occur in nature, too


As for the beginnings of the universe, people much smarter than both of us are still thinking about that problem.  But I will tell you this:  relying on common sense to tell us what is and isn't possible is a MASSIVE mistake.  Going deep into physics, things get very strange, and RIDICULOUS things happen.  Have you heard of Hawking radiation?  Or heck, here's one you probably have heard of that you can see for yourself:  Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that you can't simultaneously know the exact position and trajectory of a particle.  If you nail one down too far, the other one becomes more erratic. 


As for the flagellum, you may not be aware of this but biologists have know for some time how it could have evolved without being designed. 
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w

If you want to give a better try than just throwing up your hands at meeting a different worldview, then the first step is to understand that an atheist's "belief" is very different form yours.  Your belief is faith-based, while an atheist's is simply confidence that people are working their way to understanding the universe and have yet to find any evidence in its workings that requires there to be a god. 

Many people take this a step further; since there is currently no reason to suspect God exists, they think there is probably no evidence in the universe that God exists, and therefore are confident that God doesn't exist.  But this belief is not faith-based, although I suppose there also exist atheists that have a faith-based no-God belief. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom!